Judge Slashes Life Sentence in Pizza Theft Case

Concluding that neither the crime nor the defendant’s history warranted a lifetime behind bars, a Torrance judge Tuesday dramatically reduced the prison term for the notorious pizza thief--whose sentence of 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza helped spark a national debate over California’s tough three-strikes law.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Donald F. Pitts, exercising new judicial discretion in sentencing three-strikes defendants, brought a broad grin to the face of Jerry Dewayne Williams and shrieks of joy from Williams’ mother, one of a dozen family members on hand for a decision that drew nowhere near the attention of the original sentencing in March 1995.

At that time, Pitts sentenced Williams, then 27, to the stiff term mandated under the three-strikes law after he snatched the pizza slice from four children, ages 7 to 14, on the Redondo Beach Pier. The sentence for the five-time felon--whose previous convictions included robbery and drug possession--outraged critics of the law. But it was applauded by those who saw Williams’ final offense, however minor, as proof that he was a criminal beyond rehabilitation.

After serving almost two years of his sentence at Folsom prison, Williams again appeared before Pitts, this time asking him to use new sentencing discretion given to judges under a three-strikes ruling in June by the state Supreme Court. During a 30-minute hearing, Pitts agreed to do just that--reducing Williams’ sentence under a formula that will allow him to be released in a little more than two years.

“He has learned his lesson,” Williams’ tearful mother, Ruthie King, said outside the courtroom, joined by her mother, Clara, and daughter, Norma.

Although the ruling is certain to resonate far beyond Pitts’ courtroom, it remains to be seen just how significant it will be in the administration of the three-strikes law.

Law professor and legal analyst Laurie Levenson said the ruling may encourage an increase in appeals by convicts and even embolden some judges to reduce prior sentences. But she added it was unlikely to open the floodgates for shortened sentences.

“With this judge exercising his discretion in such a high-visibility case, it will probably lead most violators to argue for more discretion. But I still don’t think that most judges will be more lenient,” said Levenson, associate dean of Loyola Law School. “I still think that even with more discretion, the judges will not forget the public message about crime is clear: that crime should be punished.”

In Sacramento, state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, a strong supporter of the law, declined to comment on the possible implications. Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti also declined to comment, although a spokeswoman noted that Pitts’ ruling was only one of several reached by local judges in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling granting them more authority to weigh factors, including a convict’s record, in deciding three-strikes sentencing.

From the start, the case of the People vs. Jerry Dewayne Williams was one that split public opinion.

On July 30, 1994, Williams and five friends, including his girlfriend, were walking near the Redondo Beach Pier when, just before sunset, he and one of the friends approached the four children eating pizza at an outdoor table. After asking for a slice and being refused, the 6-foot-4 warehouseman from Compton grabbed the food and walked away. He was arrested minutes later after the pizza shop manager called police.

Prior to that arrest, Williams had had plenty of run-ins with the law. Beginning at age 14, he had been arrested 13 times. Six of those arrests, for crimes including vandalism and burglary, occurred when he was a juvenile. His first of five felony convictions came at 19, when he pleaded guilty to drug possession. Later, Williams would be convicted of robbery, attempted robbery and joy riding.

To underscore Williams’ extensive record and challenge the notion that his three-strikes sentence was unfair, Deputy Dist. Atty. Bill Gravlin on Tuesday not only recited Williams’ offenses but unfolded a computer printout of a “rap sheet” that extended from his outstretched arm to the floor.

“This case is not about stealing a single slice of pizza. It is about recidivism and how society deals with it,” Gravlin told the court. “If the foremost purpose of [the justice system] is to protect society, then Jerry Dewayne Williams is a person we need protection from. He is a repeat offender. He has not learned. He has not repented.

“The defendant was not starving. He was not hungry,” Gravlin said. “He took the pizza out of meanness . . . it was literally taking candy from babies.”

While Gravlin portrayed Williams as a tireless predator, public defender Arnold Lester described Williams as a reformed criminal whose last crime was a dumb but hardly life-threatening offense.

Arguing that the crux of the debate had to be whether Williams’ sentence was extreme, Lester noted that before his arrest for stealing the pizza, Williams’ brushes with the law--while numerous--never resulted in a serious injury. Only once had Williams been to prison, Lester noted, and his other convictions were for crimes that did not involve a weapon.

Significantly, Lester said, the crime that could have put Williams behind bars for life also did not involve even the threat of violence. (Williams told police after his arrest that he stole the pizza slice during a game of “Truth or Dare” with his brother-in-law.)

“No one is going to suggest to the court that Mr. Williams’ judgment was not faulty . . . but [the circumstances of the crime] suggest a lesser sentence” than life, Lester said.

“He has clearly gotten the message,” Lester added, “that things only get worse when you continue to violate the law.”

Pitts, noting that he had no discretion in issuing the initial sentence, said Tuesday that after receiving a motion to reconsider, he concluded Williams’ prison term should be trimmed in “the interest of justice.”

First, Pitts noted that the seriousness of Williams’ crime was initially cast in doubt by the jury, which deadlocked on two felony counts of robbery and instead convicted him of the lesser crime of petty theft--an offense that became a felony only because of Williams’ record.

The judge also noted that testimony during the trial suggested that the children, although clearly intimidated by Williams, were not threatened by him. The theft, Pitts said, could not be described as “a reign of terror” by Williams.

Even though Williams, the judge said, had a criminal record that should be condemned for its extensiveness, it was not one that would draw much attention in the justice system were it not for the three-strikes law.

Indeed, Pitts noted, a county probation department report found that a detective and the mother of one of the children in the case considered Williams’ original sentence excessive.

By striking one of Williams’ prior convictions, Pitts transformed the case into a second-strike conviction, meaning that the petty theft sentence--in this case, the maximum of three years--would be doubled. With time already served, Williams’ attorney calculated that his client could be released in March 1999.

The district attorney’s office can appeal Pitts’ ruling on the grounds that he abused his discretion. (Since last year’s Supreme Court decision, however, the office has given high-level review to 24 cases where judges have reduced sentences and has only filed such appeals in 11 cases, according to a spokeswoman).

Meantime, outside court, Williams’ family rejoiced in the ruling.

“[The pizza theft] was all a stupid game he played,” she said, “and it almost cost him his life.”